Does Bill Really Want Hillary In?
Photo by Jim YoungFrank Rich in today's NYTimes talks about something that I have been saying to PolCat for weeks: Bill Clinton has not been an asset to his wife's campaign. My thought is that he secretly harbors ambivalent feelings: he wants back in ... but he's not really sure he wants his wife in the top job. See, I don't really believe that either Bill or Hillary are feminists. Is Bill's sexual behavior towards women the act of a feminist? (And is Hillary's behavior toward Bill's accusers really feminist?)
Labels: 2008 elections, Bill Clinton, feminism
Stumble It!
posted by Ms. Manitoba @ 3:11 PM
4 Comments:
Personally, I think Bill is a humongously sexist prick. One reason I'm so drawn to Obama is his behaviour around his wife and daughters. It's obvious from the way his face lights up at the sight of them that the three women in his life are the center of his universe. Look at that expression on Bill's face. I think he resents his wife, although I'm sure he also loves her. He's a complex, interesting man, but being a humongous sexist is a major part of who he is.
I know feminists for Clinton and some for Obama (and some were for Edwards). Dunno, but fair question.
As for Bill Clinton - again, dunno. The man was unfaithful to his wife. In our culture, there's definitely a double standard on that. Calling it sexist seems justified, but I just think of him as being an inconsiderate ass. I also think that's always been up to the Clintons as to how they handle it, and not fodder for impeachment.
hey, mccain election,
Is this part of the McCain Googlebomb project?
This blog absolutely despises McCain now. Although at least one of us used to like him back in the day when he regularly crossed the aisle to work on issues. He's turned into a pander bear.
Hi, batocchio,
I agree that he should not have been impeached for private sexual acts with a consenting adult. However, I feel that Bill dissed Hill when he so publicly rubbed her face in his misbehaviours. Being from a culture where marriage is more a matter of property rights and family name than love and romance, it's perfectly acceptable to me that a person would want an official liaison for its social advantages and one or more unofficial liaisons for things one could not obtain within the marital framework. But in such cases, discretion is key. One never publicly flaunts one's behaviour because it would be hurtful and disrespectful to one's partner.
In this country, this culture, people expect marriage to satisfy all the needs of both partners. Seems ridiculous, but given that that's the assumption, he should have been even MORE discreet. Instead, he behaved like an idiot. And she's a sexist, too. She attacked the women he slept with viciously and misogynistically.
Ah, the damned Clintons. Drama all the goddamn time.
Post a Comment
<< Home